hey gordon,
Sometimes people think I am angry about stuff, thus my misunderstanding your comment on buttons and nicely illustrating the problems with literalism...
C'mon... YOU CHICKENS!
I've been subjected to questioning, ridicule, stereotyping, and even a small bit of hostility. My statements have been scrutinized, my analogies have been dismantled and given to new metaphors. The critic of my points keep crying the same tired song... "We want proof"
The gauntlet was cast and it is obvious that some people will NOT believe in even the remotest possibility of something that have not seen, read about in some other person's book, or that cannot be grasped by their vast intelligence.
These challengers are not stupid... I never thought they were... so I shouldn't be surprised that they will avoid the picking up of their gauntlet and attempting to support their views.
It's just a little exercise.... don't let me win this debate by default!
Gordon, please be honest with yourself; you have no reason to swagger and call us cowards when you put up a lump of very off Swiss cheese as an argument to show how wrong atheists are. You continually refuse to show what differentiates your claims of god from similar but contradictory claims of god made by other people.
If you were to invest money in a financial scheme someone presented to you, when others were presenting similar but contradictory financial schemes, and you did so just on the personal assurances of the person telling you about the scheme even though some of the claims about the scheme went beyond what was acheivable in everyday life, people would consider you foolish.
How come you think people 'investing' in a belief based upon someone's personal assurances about something beyond what was acheivable in everyday life, when there are others making similar but conflicting claims, when none of the can show any proof, is anything other than foolish?
If it's unwise to throw your money into something based on say-so, why is it wise to throw belief into something based on say-so?
Stop evading the point man. You might be impressing yourself and your internal interlocutor. If that is your sole aim, you've achieved it. Well done! You're pleased with yourself!
If you want to make an argument that has relevence for others and is convincing you are simply going to have to try harder. You seem new to this; we are not. We have been round the block a few times. Please try to be original and please try not to blow us off like that, as it is patently obvious what you're doing.
Ultimately it doesn't mean we are 'right'; but it does mean we get bored very quickly with same-old same-old, especially when they are overly impressed with their own 'cleverness'. Nice to see you got round to reading your own posts; now try reading the responses and this time deal with them or admit you can't in a way which has any relevence to someone using an evidential paradigm.
Yes, that was sarcastic, wasn't it...